Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it may well be the case.

1. The Internet Clampdown

One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in the sky.

Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an "Information Operations Roadmap" in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child pornography and "internet predators," which will surely lead to legislation that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.

2. "The Long War"

This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, "get used to it. Things aren't going to change any time soon."

3. The USA PATRIOT Act

Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections. Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause for purposes of prosecution. No, they're not going to take it back, ever.

4. Prison Camps

This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified "new programs." Of course, the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding up Muslims or political dissenters -- I mean, obviously detention facilities are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but it's, you know... secret.

5. Touchscreen Voting Machines

Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.

In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn't. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it will resume servicing the county.

Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an interesting test of the public's continuing gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don't win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is kosher.

Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We really need to fix this problem soon.

6. Signing Statements

Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe:

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

--Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

--Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don't see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a veto, and can't be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It's also totally absurd.

7. Warrantless Wiretapping

Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think that's okay? Come on -- if you know anything about history, you know that no government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day they're listening for Osama, and the next they're listening in on Howard Dean.

Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn't they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour Hersh, to figure out who's spilling the beans? It's a no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on them. They don't care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.

8. Free Speech Zones

I know it's old news, but... come on, are they ****ing serious?

9. High-ranking Whistleblowers

Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds. Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn't you listen?

10. The CIA Shakeup

Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they wouldn't be nominated if they weren't on board all the way. Goss was probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some hookers.

If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for "intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White House's analysis of Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.

Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the next time they lie about an "imminent threat" nobody's going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a "necessary reform."

Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?

penchief

05-27-2006, 01:50 PM

A lot of people have been alarmed, angered, and discouraged by these signs all along the way. Some have chosen to ignore them. These are signs that suggest this administration is determined to destroy America as we have known it. Our only hope is that all Americans wake up in time to save us from such an obvious, yet ominous, fate.

Their willingness to use fear and personal self-interest to promote an agenda that undermines our actual self-interest is about to smother all that is reasonable or virtuous about America.

FDR's words have never been more relevent than today when he said, "The only thing to fear is fear itself." We cannot allow this administration to railroad us under the guise of Big Brother protecting us.

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism no matter if you dress it up as communism or as "free enterprise."

JMHO.

banyon

05-27-2006, 03:05 PM

The "Buffalo Beast"?

:shake:

http://www.buffalobeast.com/98/images/subscription1_8color.gif

You'd think as long as they were advertising they might bother to get their grammar correct. "Only 26 payment!" You buy now!

neg rep for using such a ridiculous source.

Logical

05-27-2006, 03:38 PM

Many of those things are indeed worrisome, electronic voting should not be one of them. As long as there has been voting there has been voting tampering and fraud. It just takes different methods with each type of voting.

Adept Havelock

05-27-2006, 03:39 PM

A lot of people have been alarmed, angered, and discouraged by these signs all along the way. Some have chosen to ignore them. These are signs that suggest this administration is determined to destroy America as we have known it. Our only hope is that all Americans wake up in time to save us from such an obvious, yet ominous, fate.

Their willingness to use fear and personal self-interest to promote an agenda that undermines our actual self-interest is about to smother all that is reasonable or virtuous about America.

FDR's words have never been more relevent than today when he said, "The only thing to fear is fear itself." We cannot allow this administration to railroad us under the guise of Big Brother protecting us.

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism no matter if you dress it up as communism or as "free enterprise."

JMHO.True enough. Governments use the same rhetoric everytime to scare the populace and justify power grabs.

CHIEF4EVER

05-27-2006, 04:19 PM

Indeed.

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2006/Bush-Dictatorship.jpg

penchief

05-27-2006, 04:53 PM

Indeed.

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2006/Bush-Dictatorship.jpg

The fallacy of this argument is that America doesn't have to live under a dictatorship to deal with al-Qaeda. Something this administration hopes that you'll never understand.

If they had just listened to Clinton to begin with rather than joke about bin Laden being "Clinton's ghost" maybe those great patriots in the White House wouldn't have been caught with their pants down on 9/11.

CHIEF4EVER

05-27-2006, 05:00 PM

The fallacy of this argument is that America doesn't have to live under a dictatorship to deal with al-Qaeda. Something this administration hopes that you'll never understand.

If they had just listened to Clinton to begin with rather than joke about bin Laden being "Clinton's ghost" maybe those great patriots in the White House wouldn't have been caught with their pants down on 9/11.

You mean if Clintoris hadn't passed up the opportunity to get Bin Nutball when offered on a silver platter, 9/11 would never have happened.

penchief

05-27-2006, 05:24 PM

You mean if Clintoris hadn't passed up the opportunity to get Bin Nutball when offered on a silver platter, 9/11 would never have happened.

At least Clinton was aware that the Bush family's former business partners in the Middle East posed a threat to America. Whether or not you agree with his legal assessment pertaining directly to your charge doesn't diminish the fact that this administration scoffed at Clinton's concerns about the seriousness of the threat. Had they not dismissed those concerns as a joke then they may have been prepared for 9/11.

The real question should be whether their negligence was due to incompetence or by design.

Adept Havelock

05-27-2006, 09:48 PM

Indeed.

Perhaps you could elaborate on how insisting that Surviellance be both Constitutional and properly overseen by the Judicial and Legislative branches qualifies as a "power grab"?

Or is your "indeed" simply agreement that the government is currently involved in a blatant power grab based on undermining the separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution? :hmmm:

But hey, if Comrade Bush and his band of neocon neo-trotskyites say it's necessary to protect the homeland.. :shrug:

CHIEF4EVER

05-27-2006, 10:07 PM

At least Clinton was aware that the Bush family's former business partners in the Middle East posed a threat to America. Whether or not you agree with his legal assessment pertaining directly to your charge doesn't diminish the fact that this administration scoffed at Clinton's concerns about the seriousness of the threat. Had they not dismissed those concerns as a joke then they may have been prepared for 9/11.

The real question should be whether their negligence was due to incompetence or by design.

I'll take that as a "Yes, I agree that dumbass Clintoris effed up a golden opportunity to get Bin Nutball, especially after the 1993 WTC bombing, and that thousands of Americans died due to his preoccupation with screwing interns in the White House instead of doing his job.".

Ugly Duck

05-27-2006, 11:11 PM

You mean if Clintoris hadn't passed up the opportunity to get Bin Nutball when offered on a silver platter, 9/11 would never have happened.Uh-oh.... history check. It was the Bushron gang that had Bin Hidin holed up at Tora Bora - not Clinton. (Can't believe you didn't know that). Instead of going in and killing him, they outsourced to job to a buncha Islamic warlords that were working for the other side just a few weeks prior. Big surprise... Bin Hidin "slipped" through their ranks. Clinton was president before Tora Bora - not during. Your boy was in office when the opportunity was passed up.

Lake

05-27-2006, 11:17 PM

I think that it is pretty easy to just go ahead and have both take some of the blame here. Bush still needs to stop sacrificing virgins to himself.

unlurking

05-27-2006, 11:36 PM

All administrations over the past 50 or so years deserve the blame. It's all been about maintaining a "minor" instability in the region to protect our energy resources.

Personally, I think we will be stuck with these types of situations until we come up with a better energy resource. Nuclear energy should be providing 100% of electricity needs. I blame a lot of this on both sides, Democrats for opposing nuclear energy, and Republicans for protecting oil magnates.

I'm actually pretty excited to see what happens with the Toshiba 4S (micro-nuke)...

http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

kcfanintitanhell

05-28-2006, 01:37 AM

and that thousands of Americans died due to his preoccupation with screwing interns in the White House instead of doing his job.".
Good God Almighty, son!!! If you actually believe this , damn, I just don't know... this country is in some serious trouble...
:rolleyes:

penchief

05-28-2006, 06:16 AM

Many of those things are indeed worrisome, electronic voting should not be one of them. As long as there has been voting there has been voting tampering and fraud. It just takes different methods with each type of voting.

I don't know. It scares the hell out of me. There may always have been fraud at some level but this opens the door for fraud on a whole new level. It doesn't have to be localized. It can be anywhere at the manipulator's choosing. It could also be impossible to defend against.

The last two elections are a perfect example. For two general elections in a row the exit polls were wrong for the first time ever. Go figure. I know that Florida was not attributed to electronic voting but when considering either election, we would have no way of knowing if votes were being lost or changed anywhere in this country for the purpose of swinging a single state in order to swing the entire country. A simple calculation would be all this is needed by the manipulator. We wouldn't even know about it unless it was blatantly obvious.

There is a simple solution, however. Print a paper receipt that would go into a box and be counted to verify the electronic results. While election fraud may never be completely eliminated counting the votes twice is always better than just relying on a machine that may or may not be manipulated by the powers-that-be.

And just because voter fraud may never be completely eliminated doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say we trust a vote that cannot be verified. It seems careless to allow such a thing to happen. It us up to us, as citizens, to protect the integrity of our vote. We would be shirking our responsibility if we just said, "oh well, what are we gonna do?"

Why anybody would oppose a paper trail is beyond me. The only reason I could think of would be because they completely trust the government or because they have something to gain from it.

JMO.

CHIEF4EVER

05-28-2006, 06:17 AM

Uh-oh.... history check. It was the Bushron gang that had Bin Hidin holed up at Tora Bora - not Clinton. (Can't believe you didn't know that). Instead of going in and killing him, they outsourced to job to a buncha Islamic warlords that were working for the other side just a few weeks prior. Big surprise... Bin Hidin "slipped" through their ranks. Clinton was president before Tora Bora - not during. Your boy was in office when the opportunity was passed up.

Uh-oh, history check. You need to go back a bit further. Back to when Bin Nutball was offered up on a silver platter and he declined.

penchief

05-28-2006, 06:41 AM

Uh-oh, history check. You need to go back a bit further. Back to when Bin Nutball was offered up on a silver platter and he declined.

If you're talking about the missle in the tent, yeah, Clinton could have done that but he would have killed a lot of innocent people, including Saudi royalty. Doing it or not doing it, either way would have been a calculated risk. One that I'm not sure Bush would have been willing to take even after 9/11 because of his friendship with the Saudi's and because he's already proven that he was willing to let bin Laden get away AFTER 9/11.

It is fair to be critical of Clinton for not doing it but it would also be fair to understand why he didn't do it pre-9/11. It might have initiated that which ultimately did happen under Bush's watch. Something that Clinton seemed more interested in preventing than did Bush.

If you're talking about the reports where Clinton was supposed to travel to Sudan and then Sudan would turn bin Laden over to us, those reports have been proven to be tainted with misinformation. I have no doubts that where there is smoke there is fire but you seem to believe the RWNJ version of the story.

Considering that Bush was paralyzed by the events of 9/11 and then hid out in a silo in the midwest for a couple days, I doubt seriously he would have hopped on a plane to Sudan just because a potentially hostile Sudanese government said, "C'mon over and see us and we'll give you something you want."

No, I think that the retrocons yucked it up about "Clinton's ghost" in order to publicly deride their opponent (as is their habit) without realizing that they put our nation at risk. If they wanted bin Laden so badly they would have had him at Tora Bora.

The only other logical explanation would be that they almost wanted some sort of terrorist activity to occur so that they could justify the invasion of Iraq, the consolidation of power, and the erosion of our civil liberties. Clearly though, they would not have counted on the magnitude of those attacks because they didn't think al-Qaeda was that big of a threat.

Again, was their negligence due to incompetence or by design?

stevieray

05-28-2006, 08:00 AM

These are signs that suggest this administration is determined to destroy America as we have known it. Our only hope is that all Americans wake up in time to save us from such an obvious, yet ominous, fate.

Their willingness to use fear and personal self-interest to promote an agenda that undermines our actual self-interest is about to smother all that is reasonable or virtuous about America.

JMHO.

you are so full of shit.

penchief

05-28-2006, 08:29 AM

you are so full of shit.

Spoken like a true believer.

stevieray

05-28-2006, 08:34 AM

Spoken like a true believer.

In penchiefs FOS world, everyone was playing ring around the rosie before 2000.

penchief

05-28-2006, 08:44 AM

In penchiefs FOS world, everyone was playing ring around the rosie before 2000.

Not at all. It's just that in my world critical thinking is part of the equation. Unlike others who live in a fantasy world where everything is fine and dandy because the Bush fairy told them so.

stevieray

05-28-2006, 08:48 AM

Not at all. It's just that in my world critical thinking is part of the equation. Unlike others who live in a fantasy world where everything is fine and dandy because the Bush ferry told them so.

selective critical thinking.

who said everything is fine and dandy? oh that's right, you always have to deflect to Bush becuase you don't have anything else to pin your BS on.

penchief

05-28-2006, 08:56 AM

selective critical thinking.

who said everything is fine and dandy? oh that's right, you always have to deflect to Bush becuase you don't have anything else to pin your BS on.

I'm not deflecting at all. The Bush fairy is going to protect us all from that which is not fine and dandy because he said so. All you have to do is trust him 100%, like you do. You trust him with your civil liberties because he tells you they are "fiercely" defending your liberties and your privacies. Meanwhile, their actions prove otherwise.

Why anyone would trust this administration after reviewing their track-record is inconceivable. They have given us absolutely no reason to believe anything they say and have given us every reason to be distrustful of just about everything they say.

Even so, some people continue to believe in the Bush fairy.

stevieray

05-28-2006, 09:17 AM

I'm not deflecting at all. The Bush ferry is going to protect us all from that which is not fine and dandy because he said so. All you have to do is trust him 100%, like you do. You trust him with your civil liberties because he tells you they are "fiercely" defending your liberties and your privacies. Meanwhile, their actions prove otherwise.

Why anyone would trust this administration after reviewing their track-record is inconceivable. They have given us absolutely no reason to believe anything they say and have given us every reason to be distrustful of just about everything they say.

Even so, some people continue to believe in the Bush ferry.

right round like a record baby right right round.

all you have is your fear.You and others here have done nothing but said the same thing so many times, you've convinced yoursefl it's true, and called others who don't buy into it sheep.

I trust Bush 100%? I'm sure you need to believe that to create an "enemy".

I trust in our system. What I don't trust is people like you who are so cynical of it, You'll elect someone with no backbone, selling us out to Europes' desire for a One World Government. finalizing of the gap created by the counterculture generation, where we've been searching for a father figure ever since.

you always cry about the virtue and integrity of how this country is now being sold out...I say it started long ago, personified in the nineties.

banyon

05-28-2006, 09:20 AM

right round like a record baby right right round.

all you have is your fear.You and others here have done nothing but said the same thing so many times, you've convinced yoursefl it's true, and called others who don't buy into it sheep.

I trust Bush 100%? I'm sure you need to believe that to create an "enemy".

I trust in our system. What I don't trust is people like you who are so cynical of it, You'll elect someone with no backbone, selling us out to Europes' desire for a One World Government. finalizing of the gap created by the counterculture generation, where we've been searching for a father figure ever since.

you always cry about the virtue and integrity of how this country is now being sold out...I say it started long ago, personified in the nineties.

Our founders were pretty much a bunch of free-thinking skeptics.

People who trusted the government were "Tories".

That's why our system has so much in the way of separation of powers and checks and balances.

penchief

05-28-2006, 09:41 AM

right round like a record baby right right round.

all you have is your fear.You and others here have done nothing but said the same thing so many times, you've convinced yoursefl it's true, and called others who don't buy into it sheep.

I trust Bush 100%? I'm sure you need to believe that to create an "enemy".

I trust in our system. What I don't trust is people like you who are so cynical of it, You'll elect someone with no backbone, selling us out to Europes' desire for a One World Government. finalizing of the gap created by the counterculture generation, where we've been searching for a father figure ever since.

you always cry about the virtue and integrity of how this country is now being sold out...I say it started long ago, personified in the nineties.

If you keep believing in the Bush fairy there won't be any system left to trust. I trust the system, as well. That is why I'm highly alarmed at what has been going on. This administration has made a concentrated effort to undermine the system that you trust so much. While we agree that it is the system that both of us trust the difference appears to be one of awareness.

If you keep believing in the Bush ferry there won't be any system left to trust. I trust the system, as well. That is why I'm highly alarmed at what has been going on. This administration has made a concentrated effort to undermine the system that you trust so much. While we agree that it is the system that both of us trust the difference appears to be one of awareness.

That's what you guys are constantly doing isn't it? Fear of Bush naziism. Fear of a Bush dictatorship. Fear of an "Impending U.S. Police State." Fear of endless US casulaties in Iraq. Fear of international disapproval of the US. Fear of rich people getting tax breaks. Fear of corporations. etc.

Adept Havelock

05-28-2006, 10:03 AM

Sorry to act like the grammar police this morning, but you keep saying it...

ROFL

penchief

05-28-2006, 10:03 AM

Sorry to act like the grammar police this morning, but you keep saying it...

Wow! That's a major boner. I think I'll go back and change it. What can I say but, it's Sunday morning. I think I'll just "Fairy Across the Mersey."

I knew something didn't look right but I couldn't put my finger on it.

Of course, it could be the Bush Ferry hauling us all up shit creek without a paddle.

Mr. Laz

05-28-2006, 10:06 AM

Uh-oh.... history check. It was the Bushron gang that had Bin Hidin holed up at Tora Bora - not Clinton. (Can't believe you didn't know that). Instead of going in and killing him, they outsourced to job to a buncha Islamic warlords that were working for the other side just a few weeks prior. Big surprise... Bin Hidin "slipped" through their ranks. Clinton was president before Tora Bora - not during. Your boy was in office when the opportunity was passed up.

:clap:

penchief

05-28-2006, 10:17 AM

That's what you guys are constantly doing isn't it? Fear of Bush naziism. Fear of a Bush dictatorship. Fear of an "Impending U.S. Police State." Fear of endless US casulaties in Iraq. Fear of international disapproval of the US. Fear of rich people getting tax breaks. Fear of corporations. etc.

But Patteeu, when the administration takes actions in every arena that seem to create a pattern which points to just that, what are we supposed to do? Sit back and take it? We have a responsibility to point out that they are being dishonest about things that are vital to our democracy.

When there is a pattern of behavior that clearly serves to erode our liberties and our privacy, we are obligated to question their motives. Especially when they have not been forthright from the beginning and continue not to be forthright. When they respond to citizens doing their duty by deriding their motives and then procede further to erode our rights, our privacy, and our power as citizens, what are we supposed to do other than exercise our constitutional right to speak out about it.

The problem is not those of us who are performing our duty by speaking out, but rather, the patterns that have been clearly established by this administration.

stevieray

05-28-2006, 11:02 AM

But Patteeu, when the administration takes actions in every arena that seem to create a pattern which points to just that, what are we supposed to do? Sit back and take it? We have a responsibility to point out that they are being dishonest about things that are vital to our democracy.

When there is a pattern of behavior that clearly serves to erode our liberties and our privacy, we are obligated to question their motives. Especially when they have not been forthright from the beginning and continue not to be forthright. When they respond to citizens doing their duty by deriding their motives and then procede further to erode our rights, our privacy, and our power as citizens, what are we supposed to do other than exercise our constitutional right to speak out about it.

The problem is not those of us who are performing our duty by speaking out, but rather, the patterns that have been clearly established by this administration.

oh ya, people today are all about privacy.

penchief

05-28-2006, 11:30 AM

oh ya, people today are all about privacy.

Undermining our privacy has been only one aspect of their approach. But if you want to give up your privacy that's your business. I don't want to give up mine and I don't think it's your place or Bush's place to deprive me of my privacy rights.

If you want to lay down and roll over for this administration go right ahead but don't expect me to do the same.

Lake

05-28-2006, 11:41 AM

Privacy is big. I do not really see either party care about anyones privacy but their own.

stevieray

05-28-2006, 11:52 AM

Undermining our privacy has been only one aspect of their approach. But if you want to give up your privacy that's your business. I don't want to give up mine and I don't think it's your place or Bush's place to deprive me of my privacy rights.

If you want to lay down and roll over for this administration go right ahead but don't expect me to do the same.

we undermine our own privacy, but as usual, you have to put the blame somewhere else

penchief

05-28-2006, 04:35 PM

we undermine our own privacy, but as usual, you have to put the blame somewhere else

Heh. You're amazing.

I didn't vote for this asshole.

Pitt Gorilla

05-28-2006, 05:22 PM

you always cry about the virtue and integrity of how this country is now being sold out...I say it started long ago, personified in the nineties.Detail this personification.

Logical

05-28-2006, 07:01 PM

I'm not deflecting at all. The Bush fairy is going to protect us all from that which is not fine and dandy because he said so. All you have to do is trust him 100%, like you do. You trust him with your civil liberties because he tells you they are "fiercely" defending your liberties and your privacies. Meanwhile, their actions prove otherwise.

Why anyone would trust this administration after reviewing their track-record is inconceivable. They have given us absolutely no reason to believe anything they say and have given us every reason to be distrustful of just about everything they say.

Even so, some people continue to believe in the Bush fairy.

In another thread Adam asked me whether there was a single dramatic event that turned me against him. I said no, which is the truth but this Bush administrations erosion of our civil liberties is easily the biggest single series of events that has turned me completely against him. Just as the Republicans attack on the Judiciaries powers has made me very skeptical of the parties true intent.

Logical

05-28-2006, 07:05 PM

we undermine our own privacy, but as usual, you have to put the blame somewhere elseI admit I voted for this asshole and therefore in my case you may be correct. Does not mean I should keep my mouth shut about his abuses, actually it obligates me to admit my error and cry foul, stop, you are not representing what I as a voter desire.

jiveturkey

05-28-2006, 09:53 PM

So how far are Republicans willing to let this go? Are you guys OK with everything on the list becoming true?

Hypothetically speaking of course.

Ultra Peanut

05-28-2006, 09:57 PM

Indeed.

http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/nowakimages/2006/Bush-Dictatorship.jpgWere you trying to out-retard the article?

CHIEF4EVER

05-29-2006, 12:42 AM

Were you trying to out-retard the article?

Were you trying to out-retard the one you accuse of out-retarding the article? Both of us can ask redundant stupid ass questions with no substance, see? Try rephrasing your question (if you truly have one) utilizing a modicum of intelligence (if that's possible). Thanks in advance.

patteeu

05-29-2006, 09:31 AM

So how far are Republicans willing to let this go? Are you guys OK with everything on the list becoming true?

Hypothetically speaking of course.

Well, I'm not a Republican, but since I'm in league with them at the moment I'll answer your question:

1. The Internet Clampdown - I see no evidence of an internet clampdown coming from Republicans. There is always a threat of over-regulation from the government and that is true now just as it will/would be true under a democrat administration. I'm against it.

2. "The Long War" - I think this is a fact of life. We can either stand back and be defensive in the war that will continue to be waged against us or we can be pro-active. I'm in favor of being pro-active because I think we stand to lose more freedoms on the domestic front if we choose a defensive strategy than if we choose an offensive one.

3. The USA PATRIOT Act - I don't think it should have ever been made permanent. I'm generally against warrantless searches, sneak and peaks, and some of the other provisions in the PA. To the extent that they were already in the law (to combat drugs or organized crime), I don't think they should have been. I might be able to hold my nose and live with temporary measures aimed specifically at the prosecution of the GWoT, but I was against making them permanent and I'm against allowing them to be used for general law enforcement.

4. Prison Camps - I'm in favor of having places to keep the people we capture as part of the GWoT. I'm even more in favor of executing the most dangerous and most culpable folks that we capture (after a hearing in front of a tribunal so we can have some confidence that we are executing the guy we think we are executing).

5. Touchscreen Voting Machines - I don't have any problem with upgrading our voting technology. Fraud is always a possibility, even with paper ballots. Anti-fraud measures will continually be developed. This one doesn't bother me a bit.

6. Signing Statements - IMO the President is just as entitled (and indeed obligated) to interpret the Constitution as either of the other branches of government. I think Congress and the Judiciary need to play their roles to prevent the Executive from taking things too far. In the end, all three branches should seek to avoid a Constitutional crisis through negotiations and compromise where necessary. At this point, I see nothing wrong with the President's signing statements (although I haven't analyzed the legality of what he asserts). If the Congress objects, they should do something about it. In any event, I see no reason to be concerned here.

7. Warrantless Wiretapping - As it is described, I don't have a problem with the NSA surveillance program or their rumored data mining operation. If we weren't at war, I'd be against them, but we are so I'm not. Almost no one in Congress (and none that are briefed as far as I know) claims that what the NSA is doing is unconstitutional. The critics seem to focus on whether or not the NSA is violating the FISA statutes. If they are, then it's up to Congress to stop them or accomodate them by changing the law. If Congress doesn't do anything, I can only presume that the NSA is acting lawfully. Congressional oversight is adequate for me on a program like this (and in fact, I find it more comforting than a judicial rubber stamp).

8. Free Speech Zones - I don't care for them, but I recognize that we've had time/place restrictions on free speech for a long time. I'm not sure how you balance the right to free speech against the security concerns of municipalities and event participants and against the right of event participants to effectively hold their event.

9. High-ranking Whistleblowers - To the extent that they leak damaging classified information, they should be prosecuted and pay the price. Otherwise, I'm not even sure why this item is here. People will either pay attention to their charges or they won't. This isn't something being stiffled by an emerging police state.

10. The CIA Shakeup - After the pre-war intelligence problems, the Wilson/Plame affair, and the damaging leaks, I think it's reasonable to expect a CIA shakeup. I applaud the administration for going to work on both the CIA and, hopefully, the State Department.

In summary, I see this administration doing what every administration does in terms of eroding civil liberties. I don't see any greater reason to worry about a police state now than I did under Clinton. If anything, I'm comforted by the Bush approach to fighting an offensive GWoT instead of retreating to our shell and relying exclusively on a high-surveillance, high-local-enforcement defensive scheme.

Adept Havelock

05-30-2006, 09:18 PM

If you keep believing in the Bush fairy there won't be any system left to trust. I trust the system, as well. That is why I'm highly alarmed at what has been going on. This administration has made a concentrated effort to undermine the system that you trust so much. While we agree that it is the system that both of us trust the difference appears to be one of awareness.

Heh, that's pretty good. I'm gonna have to learn how to use all those computer tools so I can express the obvious more clearly.

Ultra Peanut

06-01-2006, 02:17 PM

Were you trying to out-retard the one you accuse of out-retarding the article? Both of us can ask redundant stupid ass questions with no substance, see? Try rephrasing your question (if you truly have one) utilizing a modicum of intelligence (if that's possible). Thanks in advance.ICE BURN